col lab orative, team- oriented understandings
of the work, and to establish an educational
system in which faculty serve as primary
mentors/guides to a ll of our students.
While the Foundation Task Force wa s
planning a nd implementing incremental
changes, our Practice department greatly
expanded its work to include design compe-
titions, fac ulty-led de sign and design/build
projects in the Boston area communities, as
well as work in areas farther afield where
students, themselves, have identified project s.
At any given time, close to 200 students
participate in these “Gateway” opportunities,
a nd the work, the students’ learning, the
engagement of faculty and the sense of
purpose they provide for all involved are
impressive. Students involved in Gateway
proje cts appe ar to be more solidly committed
to the progra ms in which they are enrolled.
Finally, c onversations that took place over
a period of time 2–3 years ago among
Education Directors led to a commonly held
list that delineated what “the BAC students
will know and will be able to do.” Informed
by this work, in the fall of 2009, the
Provost’s Council discussed and described
the successf ul BAC student, that person’s
attributes and the institutional structures,
s ystems and practices that supported her/his
suc c ess . From this conversation, a sense of
the students who have a clear c apacity for
degree completion and what we need to do
to solidify their success was articulated.
Con sensus wa s re ached that this information
cou ld b e utilized to design student- centered
educ ationa l opportunities that would allow
our best students to thrive a nd would
support students’ progress to acquire some
of the strengths they may be lacking.
The Curriculum ReDesign Process
The plan for re-visioning the entire curricu-
lum of the BAC—all programs at both the
masters and bachelors le vels — entailed
se vera l steps over the course of two years:
■
Mission related le arning goals, firmly
rooted in our educ ationa l intentiona lity
that would lead to the BAC’s fulfilling its
educ ationa l mission were defined. Thes e
learning goals included the requirements
of all of the accrediting bodies by which
the institution is held accountable.
■
Evidenc e that students will have met these
learning goals wa s identified and
differentiated bet ween the undergraduate
a nd graduate level s. A s in other profes -
siona l educ ation programs, the bachelors
level is focused on instructing students to
become skilled practitioners, while the
masters level, bec ause it is often re cog-
nized as the highest level in a field,
develops students’ abilities beyond
practice skills to generate new disciplinary
thinking and knowledge.
■
During the de sign phases of the project,
a variety of learning formats were
con sidered. These included: fa cilitated
group convers ations, either online or
face-to-fa ce; online learning; hybrid
learning; sketch problems; travel inten-
sives; experiential exercises; c ourses and
more oc ca sion ally, lectures.
■
A robu st sy stem of student evaluation
has been developed, and faculty will be
instructed on the complexities of a s ses sing
a nd guiding students. Therefore, f urther
course work for faculty development will
be designed.
Jovial Sanon ’12, M.Arch
PRACTICE
20
FEATURE] TOWARD AN INTEGRATED CURRICULUM